There's this one old story about a certain Samaritan.Originally Posted by dawg80
You may have heard it.
|
|
|
|
|
There's this one old story about a certain Samaritan.
You may have heard it.
You should have read the rest of my post. These 3 countries are shithole countries that don't give a damn about the people. The money that we send them never gets to the people. Read the article that I posted a link too.
Sounds bad. But are you sure you're not conflating the current immigration discussion with foreign aid?
That may be, and that should certainly be enough to challenge it's inclusion although proving that might be a tall order. In general I still think it shouldn't be such a big deal to include it and honestly think it probably should be included.
Chief Justice John Roberts' vote in this case is more proof that he has been compromised and the DC establishment has him by the gonads. We'll have to wait until Ginsburg croaks before we get a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court.
Proves that he cares that the SC appears apolitical, and that is a good thing. He is conservative to the core.
Yeah, he's conservative right up until the time where he is the deciding vote. He caved to the lefties on this case just like he did on the case involving the repeal of Obamacare. He's a phony conservative that is under the control of the deep state. I put him right up there with the Bush family.
You just don’t know better. He has voted with the liberal justices on occasion, and has been the pivotal vote only 5 times - 2 of which you named. Some actual stats and comparisons:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-only-5-times/
As the composition of the court shifts, there will always be at least one justice that represents the ideological middle of the court. Roberts is it now, and the ideological middle is on the right. That middle vote has lots of power, and therefore there is a lot of pressure on them to “get it right.” For the Supreme Court, there is a lot of balancing factors that all judges weigh in these cases, but chief among them is the apolitical neutrality of the Supreme Court. Like US currency, trust in its fidelity is what actually gives it power. Thus, the fact that the court has shifted to the right has the interesting effect of pushing that middle voter further to the left. That is a good thing for America.
Tell me, Goosey, honestly, what is your take on the 9th Circuit Court? I have my opinion, which you could probably guess what it is. But, without any prefacing, I ask an open-ended question of your opinion.
The largest, most dynamic, and generally the most progressive circuit (to the extent you can generalize with the massive number of judges serving in the circuit). It has appellate jurisdiction over federal cases arising in the fastest-growing, most economically and socially dynamic cities in the US, thus it often finds itself on the frontier of trend, reviewing cases presenting new issues where old laws can be trickier to apply. For example, the courts over which it has appellate jurisdiction are the ones hearing most of the high tech cases. Criticisms of its decision overturn rate tend to be a bit overblown considering these facts and how low the reversal rate actually is low (less than 1 percent of cases it decides). This overturn rate isn’t much different than the most conservative circuit, the sixth circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over some of the most boring states in the nation. In fact, there was a streak where the Supreme Court overturned 24 of 25 cases they heard from the Sixth circuit about a decade ago.
Follow-up...I gave you a chance to get it right, and you blew it! Hah!
Actually, you honestly don't think, I mean honestly, it isn't just a liberal, activist court making law rather than interpreting law? Yes, I know, even conservative courts can fall into the trap of "making" law based on traditional values, convention, if you will. But conservative courts tend to stand on the law...which is why they are conservative. Your labeling the 6th Circuit as conservative and having jurisdiction over "boring states" drives that point home. And, I am not disputing that it is conservative. The 5th Circuit, New Orleans, has been conservative too, especially as it regards business decisions. Meaning decisions on corporate law, etc.. There is nothing "boring" about New Orleans.
You touted Justice Roberts' as doing what is right for America. When will the 9th Circuit do that?
I didn’t say that the 5th circuit covered boring states. The 6th circuit does. Not saying that you can’t be entertained in Tennessee or Kentucky (those two have tons of natural beauty and Nashville is very entertaining), but they are “boring” in the sense that they aren’t really a hotbed of innovation where it is challenging to apply the law to new issues.
Well, it may be true the 9th Circuit has to occasionally deal with cutting-edge issues re: the law. But, that's not the concern. It's the extremist, anti-American track record of that court that is in question. It is a liberal, activist court going WAY BEYOND their charge to rule on cases that actually involves it. That's the reason commies and others wishing to do harm to the USA file lawsuits and engage in other activities designed to invoke a legal action within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. It is NOT a fair Court of Appeals. It has a strict anti-American mission.
So, if people want the Supreme Court to be politically neutral...and I agree, it should be...then the 9th Circuit needs to be completely over-hauled, or done away with. Divide up its region amongst the other courts.
Your opinion is uninformed.
Your weak response is proof-positive I nailed it. But, that's hardly a revelation to real Americans.
Never mind, I knew as a good commie comrade you would never admit the 9th Circuit is in league with you anti-Americans. I don't need you to admit that which is a proven fact. But, just for fun, I wanted to see how you would dance around it. You disappointed me, actually. I expected you to produce one example, probably from the 1950's or something, where the 9th made a ruling that was not so radical. You didn't even do that.
Carry on...comrade!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
